Re:draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



A bit late since this threat will be moderated soon. But I strongly object to this delay of needed action.

I guess the other way the problem, which will hurt muchmuch more is maybe to considering a filter of 6to4 on isp level?
I will suggest it when we start deploying native ipv6.

--- Roger J. ---

On Jul 2, 2011 6:39 PM, "Ronald Bonica" <rbonica@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Whereas there has been considerable controversy regarding draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic, the v6ops chairs and document author have agreed to the following course of action:
>
> - the V6OPS WG will withdraw its request to publish draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
> - The author will introduce a new draft, intended for standards track publication. The new draft will update RFCs 3056 and 3068. It will say that if 6-to-4 is implemented, it must be turned off by default.
> - In order for the new draft to be published, it must achieve both V6OPS WG and IETF consensus
>
> If anyone objects to this course of action, please speak up soon.
>
> Ron
> <Speaking as OPS Area AD>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]